March 1897.] DVAR : LlFE-HlSTORIES OF N. Y. SLUG CATERPILLARS. 11 
perpendicular, the lateral and subventral areas practically continuous, 
the latter not retracted, spiracles exposed. Elongate, subcylindrical, 
the subdorsal ridge marking the change in direction of back and sides; 
lateral ridge slight. Horns well developed, irregular, well armed with 
strongly stinging spines. Subdorsals on joints 3 to 5, 8, 11 and 12 long, 
those on 5, 8, n and 12 longest, 6, 7, 9 and 10 very short; lateral 
horns moderate, those on joints 3 and 4 longest, that on 5 absent. De¬ 
pressed spaces feebly developed, (1) to (4) (7) and (8) indicated by 
obscure dark, impressed dots, (1) paired. Skin densely finely spinulose- 
granular, the granules colorless. Patches of caltropes are present on 
the lateral horns of joints 6 to 13 and subdorsal horn of 13, but no de¬ 
tachable spines. The larva is very brightly colored. In the first stage 
the horns have the structure and arrangement of E. delphinii , three 
setae from the apex of each. 
This larva stands near Sibine stimulea in degrees of specialization. 
Its skin structure is higher, but the detachable spines are absent and the 
coloration is less diversified. It is, therefore, on the whole, a little 
lower than Sibine. It stands, perhaps, nearest the main stem of the 
spined Eucleids of any of our species. The horns at maturity are 
scarcely modified in relative proportions from the condition in stage I; 
the primitive bright warning colors are present and the urticating spines 
are in full functional activity, neither as yet affected by degeneration. 
The shape is more like that of an ordinary lepidopterous larva than 
usual. Therefore, we may regard E. indetermina as, on the whole, 
most like the ancestor of the spined Eucleids of any New York species, 
exclusive of Phobetroji pithecium , which represents a still older con¬ 
dition. 
Affinities, Habits, etc. 
This species is a typical representative of the group of spined 
Eucleids. Its near allies are found throughout South America and in 
India. Our nearest species is Euclea delphmii. The moth, however, 
so closely resembles that of Parasa chloris that the two species were for 
a long time confounded. They were separated by Grote in 1881, but 
Herrich-Schaeffer’s figure was not correctly identified. It was sug¬ 
gested by Andrews, from the structure of the larva, that the species 
should be placed in Euclea rather than in Parasa , and this opinion is 
confirmed by the venation of the moth. 
E. indetermina has a suiithern range. It occurs around New York 
City, but seems to be entirely absent from the Hudson valley. It is 
rather local in its appearance, often being common in certain localities 
